User talk:68.202.122.81

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your edit to silicon carbide

Thanks for experimenting with the page silicon carbide on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added obviously incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in our encyclopedia must be verifiable. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you now still revert these numbers. It is clearly stated that the hardness is 9, but that that one patent states 9 1/4, because in that patent they try to make that point. That is verifyable information, even if you regard it as being incorrectly stated in the patent. At this moment you are edit warring, and are not engaging in a discussion. The fact that you are hiding behind a changing IP does not really serve your cause. Please engage into discussion, and state why you think the way it is worded now is still wrong. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
For your convenience, I have added a link to the original document. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to silicon carbide. If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, there has never been any actual moissanite to duplicate in the lab, therefore what is being produced today is a moissanite simulant and not a synthentic (100% the same chemical structure as the real stuff). Furthermore, the Mohs scale does not recognize 1/4 scales. Therefore, don't create a scale to fit the marketing purposes of this product. Are you an investor in Charles & Colvard stock? My points are more on target to the truth, not fictional marketing desires. GET IT NOW?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.122.81 (talk • contribs)

I guess you have seen the patent referenced in moissanite. We refer to that patent, that patent states 8.5-9.25, it is a valid reference. Fight the patent, not wikipedia. You are pushing your POV, against references, which is unacceptable. I am sorry. You will have to do better than this, but thank you for this explanation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


ONE MUST CONCLUDE YOU ARE AN INVESTOR AND NOT INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH. SINCE THE MOHS SCALE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE 1/4 SCALES, WE WILL CONTINUE TO POST THE TRUTH ABOVE INVESTOR DESIRES.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.122.81 (talk • contribs)

FURTHERMORE, DIRK, YOU ADMIT TO SYNTHETIC SILICON CARBIDE, THEREFORE YOU CAN'T HAVE SYNTHETIC SILICON SILICON CARBIDE AND USE THE TERM SYTHETIC MOISSANITE, THEY THEN CONFLICT CHEMICALLY (THIS IS YOUR BACKGROUND RIGHT?). A SYNTHETIC CANNOT BE A SYNTHETIC OF ITSELF? JUST BE HONEST HERE, OK?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.122.81 (talk • contribs)

[edit] your edit to diamond simulant

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to diamond simulant. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and they have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Again I ask you, could you please get into the discussion on the talkpage. Unexplained and unsourced numerical changes by anon accounts will be reverted. Substantiate your edits on talkpages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to diamond simulant, you will be blocked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to diamond simulant, you will be blocked from editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You still have a chance to engage in discussion .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, there has never been any actual moissanite to duplicate in the lab, therefore what is being produced today is a moissanite simulant and not a synthentic (100% the same chemical structure as the real stuff). Furthermore, the Mohs scale does not recognize 1/4 scales. Therefore, don't create a scale to fit the marketing purposes of this product. Are you an investor in Charles & Colvard stock? My points are more on target to the truth, not fictional marketing desires. GET IT NOW?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.122.81 (talk • contribs)

I guess you have seen the patent referenced in moissanite. We refer to that patent, that patent states 8.5-9.25, it is a valid reference. Fight the patent, not wikipedia. You are pushing your POV, against references, which is unacceptable. I am sorry. You will have to do better than this, but thank you for this explanation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia works via finding consensus. It is written by many editors. For a part of moissanite that is based on the patent that is refered to there. That patent states (and that may be incorrect, but it is actually written there) 8.5-9.25. When referring to that patent that then means that we use those numbers. I have already given an explanation, which you keep on removing, which states, neutrally, that 9.25 does not appear on Moh's scale, but that that is the number that is given in the patent. Writing 8.5-9.0 would not be correct, since that would not fit with the reference. Hence the other solution.
Since you are working from an IP, I can not check you affiliation, and hence, plain number changes and removals of data are reverted. You have been given several chances to engage into discussion on the talkpage of these pages, but you either will not engage in that, or already know that more people on wikipedia will not comply with your complaint and hence you push your POV. You know that I am not the only person reverting your unilateral edits. You can change the text to more clarify your point, but since the patent states 8.5-9.25, these numbers are going to stay. So, yes, I do get what you mean, but I don't think that you get that wikipedia works via consensus, and that we cite our sources correctly. I hope you will engage in discussion now, and see if we can come to a good solution for this. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

ONE MUST CONCLUDE YOU ARE AN INVESTOR AND NOT INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH. SINCE THE MOHS SCALE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE 1/4 SCALES, WE WILL CONTINUE TO POST THE TRUTH ABOVE INVESTOR DESIRES.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.122.81 (talk • contribs)

FURTHERMORE, DIRK, YOU ADMIT TO SYNTHETIC SILICON CARBIDE, THEREFORE YOU CAN'T HAVE SYNTHETIC SILICON SILICON CARBIDE AND USE THE TERM SYTHETIC MOISSANITE, THEY THEN CONFLICT CHEMICALLY (THIS IS YOUR BACKGROUND RIGHT?). A SYNTHETIC CANNOT BE A SYNTHETIC OF ITSELF? JUST BE HONEST HERE, OK?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.122.81 (talk • contribs)

You have been asked several times to engage in discussion on the talkpages. Unilateral change is not the way to perform edits on the wikipedia. Here we try to find consensus. I have done my best on silicon carbide to find a text that explains why that specific patent is using 9.25, when you would have taken the time to explain all the other mistakes in these articles, and had tried to find consensus you probably would have come way further than this. There may be inconsistensies, or things may be plainly wrong, but this is not the way to reach a correct version. I am very sorry that you are not willing to discuss, and that may simply result in an incorrect version being on the wikipedia. I feel it fair to tell you that you have been reported. Again, I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Moissanite like cubic zirconia is a real natural mineral. When it is manufactured it is rightly called a synthetic, and not a simulant. Furthermore, the Mohs scale has been used in a "quarter point" with moissanite to make note that it is still nowhere near the hardness of diamond (which a 9.5 would be likely to imply), although it's hardness is greater than corundum. You are incorrect in making the changes you have made, and your continual reversion of the noted pages is vandalism. STOP! SauliH 04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Crazy assertion Saul. No lab in the world has had any actual moissanite to replicate in the lab, so therefore, it can't be a synthetic. The synthetic is silicon carbide which makes it a simulated moissanite. A synthetic has to be 100% as the original, since nobody has ever had any actual moissanite to replicate, the correct term is simulated moissanite made out of synthetic silicon carbide. Are you an investor too? The stock continues to drop.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.122.81 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for this discussion. I don't really understand this. You say 'no lab in the world has had any actual moissanite to replicate in the lab, so therefore, it can't be a synthetic'. Now I am not a native in English, but synthesis means that something gets made, something that may or may not have existed before, and simulate means you try to make something look like something else. If no lab had any moissanite to start with, how can one simulate it, one can only synthesise it? Or do I miss something here? Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on diamond simulant. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for WP:3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Diamond simulant. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Diamond simulant).

The duration of the block is 12 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Hello, I first have to apologise, since I did not notify you directly of this when I started the thread. I am sorry. But no changes have been made (yet), and you still can have your word in the discussions (and I hope you will), so I hope there is no harm done.

Since we both feel strongly about the exact formulation of the two articles, I have decided to take the matter to a wikiproject for discussion. The thread can be found here. I have decided not to implement any changes myself, but have asked what other people think about the current formulation and the wording of the articles.

I hope we can find a solution there. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)